[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Hemi-Cuda]

If the owners actually start threatening to move if they don't get their free money, I say let them. Calgary is one of the most profitable locations in the NHL, if ownership throws that away to lose money in Seattle or Kansas City then they'll be spiting themselves. I also don't think it would take very long for the league to start looking at Calgary as a relocation or expansion target if the Flames moved, so screw bowing down to any pressure they try to put on the city

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I would want my representatives (the city for the tax payers) to look at every project that comes their way for civic gain.

rip the CalgaryNEXT deal apart and come back with a counter that they like, doesn't have to even be a transact-able deal, can be a city favoured proposal that gets into items in a term sheet format that can be looked at by both sides.

if the deal breakers break the deal then you gave it a shot. If they don't, then maybe the CSEC moves substantially on many items and a year and a half later there might be a project emerging.

or if you simply don't want a project in the west village of that size come out and say that. Give some reasons and put an end to it.

Instead we got grandstanding and self promotion. Sad.

I still don't get why you are expect the city to counter with something. The city is fine with the Saddledome. They have a professional hockey team playing there with no where else to go. What are the drivers that the city uses to define the project. We don't need more redevelopment until EV is built out. A standalone Fieldhouse is better than the proposal and cheaper. What in the flames proposal was open to counter?

[Ozy_Flame]

Like years past, if all we really have to gripe about Nenshi is more or less his professionalism in a public setting, then we really have nothing to gripe about. The guy is delivering all the services and facilities as mayor, he's controlling spending where he can, and he's speaking up for the city when necessary.

How the mayor conducts himself is the least of the worries when it comes to CalgaryNEXT or whatever succeeds it. There is so many moving parts with tons of players behind the scenes I highly doubt CSEC regards the Mayor's PR skills as a game changer.

[Envitro]

In Edmonton the LRT station is under the arena, as far as I know.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

CalgaryNext might not have been one page but it was shockingly thin and shortsighted proposal for all the time and hype (Muta) we saw prior. Terrible location, complete lack of acess and egress, no actual arena design etc etc. Maybe not one page.. Maybe five?

Right, and that was almost 2 years ago. This may be a shock to you, but times and economies change. You have no idea the magnitude and complex work that goes into something like this, and while you may not like what was presented or proposed regarding the West Village, I assure you, lots of people from different backgrounds put many, many hours into getting it to where it is was, and still put in hours dedicated to seeing this thing get built regardless of location. You have no idea the type of work that went into this from the Flames, the City, all the consultants, etc.

It may look 'shockingly thin and shortsighted' to you, but that's a disrespect to all the people that put in countless hours into this conceptual project, and you fail to realize this was a concept, not a final design, and that was always the idea.

This is a transformational project when, all said and done, will be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. The West Village concept was ambitious, innovative and a great idea at the time, and in my personal opinion, it still is. The location is perfect for the project for several reasons, but that's in no way up to me where it now ends up. Whatever happens, Calgary will end up with a better arena than Edmonton.

You mention the word 'shortsighted', but when you make comments like 'five pages' long to explain CalgaryNEXT, it ends up being you who fully embodies that ignorant sentiment.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

or if you simply don't want a project in the west village of that size come out and say that. Give some reasons and put an end to it.

They did. The CRL the Flames proposed wouldn't get funded enough from property tax. It was a non-starter the moment that was included as part of the project on the bar napkin they scanned to make their power point presentation.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

I still don't get why you are expect the city to counter with something. The city is fine with the Saddledome. They have a professional hockey team playing there with no where else to go. What are the drivers that the city uses to define the project. We don't need more redevelopment until EV is built out. A standalone Fieldhouse is better than the proposal and cheaper. What in the flames proposal was open to counter?

But you're responding.

I have no problem with any of that. That's the difference. You're providing reasons and that in itself is a professional response.

Add in the his pet project of an olympic bid which has zero chance without new facilities and the whole thing comes across as hollow and grandstanding.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

They did. The CRL the Flames proposed wouldn't get funded enough from property tax. It was a non-starter the moment that was included as part of the project on the bar napkin they scanned to make their power point presentation.

So counter without the CRL, or reduce the numbers.

This isn't all that tough. The Flames used the Oilers funding model right down to the CRL as an opening proposal. Respond to it with what works and what doesn't.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by New Era

Oh, so there is a difference? So where do you draw the line on public funding?

You make it sound like there is one definitive line, and all we need to do is discover it.

The line will be different for everyone.

For the "Freedom caucus" in the US, your description is apt - don't fund anything.. sink or swim on their own merits.

For the NDP and those further left, it is give Government all of your money, we know better than anyone.

For the rest of us, it is somewhere in the middle and will differ on topic by topic. Do I think that an arena should be publicly funded? Not entirely, but partially (and I don't know what percentage). Should the Jubilee be funded? Yes (but not fully, and I don't know what percentage), because it gives wonderful experiences for kids of all ages and abilities through school trips, school recitals, etc.

Same can be said for pretty much everything. Just like the political spectrum, it's a sliding scale and where each person is on the spectrum will be completely different

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But you're responding.

I have no problem with any of that. That's the difference. You're providing reasons and that in itself is a professional response.

Add in the his pet project of an olympic bid which has zero chance without new facilities and the whole thing comes across as hollow and grandstanding.

Ok, but you realize the arena is 90-100% likely to happen right? Unless the Flames go off the deep end and try to get $200 million from the city for the building itself, this will get done. But CalgaryNEXT was always a terrible idea, forget the presentation that was lackluster, the idea itself was flawed. City has no incentive to give the $200 million when it can use that money on it's own, 100% public facility. Flames just tried to get a new building for the Stamps for basically free, which is their right to attempt. And it's Nenshi's right (really, it's his obligation) to call a bad project a bad project.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So counter without the CRL, or reduce the numbers.

This isn't all that tough. The Flames used the Oilers funding model right down to the CRL as an opening proposal. Respond to it with what works and what doesn't.

So you'd be happy with the city making a counter offer of:

No CRL.

No Fieldhouse (because they want to dictate where it goes, the timeline, don't want a pro sports team using it).

CSEC has to buy the land.


Then what are we left with? What the hell is the point of the counter-offer?



Yes the Flames copied the Oilers proposal and tacked on $200M more. But it doesn't work. They should have known that. I say again, it is a complete non-starter that it was included in the first place. It doesn't deserve a counter. It simply deserved a flat-out 'No.'

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So counter without the CRL, or reduce the numbers.

This isn't all that tough. The Flames used the Oilers funding model right down to the CRL as an opening proposal. Respond to it with what works and what doesn't.

What does Edmonton's bum deal have to do with the City of Calgary?

Is it not equally appropriate for the City to then start negotiating based on the City of Toronto's deal with the ACC?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You have pretty low expectations for the city then.

I don't.

they are paid with our tax dollars to represent us in what's best for the city. Sitting back and doing nothing until something comes along they like is a fair amount below what I would consider acceptable effort, response and thought.

Glad you're happy though!

The Flames opened with the Oilers offer. That's not an embarrassment to anyone, it's a logical starting point.

That's not how the city operates. Especially in regards to the planning and development process. Those people aren't paid by your taxes, they're funded by the application fees that are paid to engage city planning, and this is largely a planning exercise. The onus is not on the city to provide an alternative plan, their job is to respond to the plan that is presented, which they did. You might not like the response (most applicants don't) but that's the role that the city has in this, not to be visionary.

Originally Posted by Muta

It may look 'shockingly thin and shortsighted' to you, but that's a disrespect to all the people that put in countless hours into this conceptual project, and you fail to realize this was a concept, not a final design, and that was always the idea.

Does a poor performance despite a lot of effort demand respect? The concept was poorly delivered, poorly represented, and in the opinion of many, poorly thought out, and finally the numbers were unreasonable. No matter how much effort was exerted, that doesn't automatically deserve respect.

[stone hands]

I don't see why the city has to make a counter offer at all

They could be more polite with a simple no, but when you have ken king parading around Calgary saying we aren't a world class city unless we pony up a billion dollars to fund a private sports venue I would probably be a little tired of the rhetoric too

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What does Edmonton's bum deal have to do with the City of Calgary?

Is it not equally appropriate for the City to then start negotiating based on the City of Toronto's deal with the ACC?

Nothing. But it's a logical place to start from a CSEC standpoint isn't it?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Nothing. But it's a logical place to start from a CSEC standpoint isn't it?

Uhm, obviously not because the project is dead.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ok, but you realize the arena is 90-100% likely to happen right? Unless the Flames go off the deep end and try to get $200 million from the city for the building itself, this will get done. But CalgaryNEXT was always a terrible idea, forget the presentation that was lackluster, the idea itself was flawed. City has no incentive to give the $200 million when it can use that money on it's own, 100% public facility. Flames just tried to get a new building for the Stamps for basically free, which is their right to attempt. And it's Nenshi's right (really, it's his obligation) to call a bad project a bad project.

Then reject it with reasons and never look back. Have said that was a preferred option from the start.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Then reject it with reasons and never look back. Have said that was a preferred option from the start.

"We don't feel that subsidizing billionaires is in the best interest of the city of Calgary"

Happy?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Uhm, obviously not because the project is dead.

That doesn't even make sense.

The city said it's not dead. The mayor has said it's dead because he loves tv cameras.

Look it was a starting point, a professional response would have had the "bad idea" answer arrived upon 12 months ago.

Instead it was all politics and bloviating with nothing by way of tangible reasons why a project like that wouldn't work.

As I said I have no problem with the city rejecting it. But do so with reasons and move on.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by stone hands

"We don't feel that subsidizing billionaires is in the best interest of the city of Calgary"

Happy?

Not at all. You're just going to the politics again.